Netflix Madeleine McCann

[mumineedawee]

AIBU to think that any coverage of her disappearance is a good thing. I watched two episodes of the Netflix programme and think that if it were to bring her back into the spotlight, then surely it’s worthwhile? I’m on my own in that opinion here in our house.

The blood in the hire car shared 80% DNA with MM - as would every member of her family who was in the hire car. Don't humans share 50% of DNA with bananas or something? It was a misleading statement.

From 10pm they were continuously in the company of others and didn't get the car till 25 days after MM's disappearance.

Keith Bennett and Suzy Lamplugh's remains have also never been found. It's possible this may be the same.

The police officers said themselves that once they started going on about her eye it was a death sentence as she was too easily identifiable

Last november the police said that the toy car they found didn't actually belong to Ben Needham and the case is in fact still unsolved.

youarenotkiddingme
I don't have Netflix and not seen the series.

Why haven't they ? We have a system that works ? Why would the press "know" stuff that they didn't pass on? Where did they find this information that the met police couldn't? It doesn't make sense to me. I don't think it's me that's gullible or naive I think it's people that believe all this absolute crap.

Alec Yes, she is. And thankfully for the McCanns, so are most of the general public...

The blood evidence was not translated properly. The person who did it missed out loads of caveats.

It came from UK and was sent to Portuguese police.

Your friends husband doesn't know anything. Yet more conspiracy theories to whip people into a frenzy. If he did and the press have evidence why have they not taken it to the police and why have the police not acted upon it?

Oh please

How about the cadaver dogs? They are hugely reliable.

I'm obviously missing something

Did anyone watch The prosecutors on BBC?

I have a friend who's a crown prosecutor and explained things to me as does this programme.

You'll get 'evidence'. The 'evidence' is then presented as a way to explain what happened - and will be presented with a bias as such to match a persons theory.

You then have the reasonable doubt side of proceedings. Evidence may point towards someone's hypothesis but if you can prove there's reasonable doubt then it can't be used to convict.

It's the same with the dna in this case. Police took the 80% match and used it as 'proof' in their hypothesis to accuse their suspects.
The reasonable doubt is then added in with 'anyone of family could have 80% match' and 'car was hired 25 days after disapperance'.

It's scary imo though how someone can take 1 thing and make people believe 100% they are right when other things are also and could also be correct.

I bet their friend will never ever get over the guilt of not checking the room.

You can't be sued to speaking the truth in a private conversation.

You can if you don't have access to the evidence to back up your assertions. True as they may be.

I’ve finished it. I think what the documentary suggests in the last episode is unfortunately likely (human trafficking). It’s unthinkable.

YouTube has some very interesting footage of cadaver dogs signalling cadaver smell in the bedroom wardrobe in the apartment.

I too wonder if the ‘Tapas group’ and the Mcanns are still friends. Did they argue over it? The dress they were all under would make it likely they fell out.

Caroline161

Lamplight5
Your friends husband doesn't know anything. Yet more conspiracy theories to whip people into a frenzy. If he did and the press have evidence why have they not taken it to the police and why have the police not acted upon it?

Not my husband's friend, you're mixing up up with another poster who I'd asked a question. I agree though, the husband's friend might know things the press can't print, but he cannot be sued for telling the friend what these things were. People say they know stuff to make themselves sound important.

Caroline61*, of course newspapers and jounalists know things which can't be printed for all sort of reasons. A journalist friend of mine told me about Cyril Smith back in the 80s.

How about the cadaver dogs? They are hugely reliable

The McCanns didn't hire the car until 25 days after Madeleine disappeared.

Yes my mistake and I absolutely agree. So fed up of this "I'm in the know but I absolutely can't say anything" absolute rubbish.

Hate this argument about what about the other missing children? What missing children exactly? How many of that age in the same time frame & from the UK are suspected stranger abductions/murdered? None. There are missing children yes, but taken by family in disputes or they are older runaways. Not the same at all, not the same risk of harm.

There was the little girl of the same sort of age - Katrice - who went missing from a NAAFI supermarket in Germany, i.e. on a British base, when her mother nipped back to another aisle to get something. The girl would be about 40 now, yet we don't hear much about her case, and millions haven't been spent on investigating what happened there. Her parents must be just as distressed, but we hardly hear a word.

Caroline61, of course newspapers and jounalists know things which can't be printed for all sort of reasons. A journalist friend of mine told me about Cyril Smith back in the 80s.

This is the thing though, your friend told you. Some journalists of course know things which can't be printed, but there's nothing in the world preventing the journalist friend of the PP telling her and her DH. Especially regarding his opinion.

I feel so sorry for them and the Needhams, waking up every morning just not knowing 😪

Pere I think it's because there was less media / internet available back then? And being base would mean other restrictions in place.

Each case is different.